Ruth's Report: Larry Johnson on the conspiracy to destroy President Trump

Who is this?

Larry Johnson. I am glad he is writing regularly once again. He has a new column:

The Democrats are in big trouble now that the plot to destroy Donald Trump's Presidency is being uncovered. The facts that will be revealed in the coming months will fully expose the foundation of lies and show that the FBI and the U.S. intelligence community were weaponized against U.S. citizens who dared oppose Hillary Clinton.

I want you to look back at the suit the DNC filed against Trump and the Russians in April 2018. The so-called facts asserted by the DNC in their complaint are not so clever lies. Did they really believe that this concoction of crap would hold up in the face of a serious investigation?

Let's look at the specifics (you can read the full complaint here).

Russian agents trespassed onto the DNC's computer network in the United States, as well as other email accounts, collected trade secrets and other private data, and then transmitted the data to Defendant WikiLeaks, whose founder, Assange, shared the defendants' common goal of damaging the Democratic party in advance of the election.

Now look at these facts. There was no forensic evidence that Russia "hacked" the DNC. Oh yes, you have been fed the nonsense that the intelligence community "concluded" that is what happened. But we need only look at what CrowdStrike CEO Alperovitch and FBI Director have stated in public.

Alperovitch told Washington Post Reporter Ellen Nakashima on June 14, 2016 the following:

CrowdStrike is not sure how the hackers got in. The firm suspects they may have targeted DNC employees with “spearphishing” emails. These are communications that appear legitimate — often made to look like they came from a colleague or someone trusted — but that contain links or attachments that when clicked on deploy malicious software that enables a hacker to gain access to a computer. “But we don’t have hard evidence,” Alperovitch said.

A competent cyber security company only needed to examine the server logs and the logs of the computers attached to the server to obtain evidence showing how the penetration occurred. But CrowdStrike never figured that out and had no hard evidence.

How about the FBI? Surely they had "forensic" evidence. Nope! Jim Comey testified to the House Intelligence Committee in March 2017 and stated the following:

“we never got direct access to the machines themselves. The DNC in the spring of 2016 hired a firm that ultimately shared with us their forensics from their review of the system."

Surely the NSA, who collects and stores all email communications from the United States to foreign countries had the proof. No again. Here is what both NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers and FBI Director Comey told Congressman Hurd of Texas:

HURD: Director Rogers, did the NSA ever get access to the DNC hardware?

ROGERS: The NSA didn't ask for access. That's not in our job...

HURD: Good copy. So director FBI notified the DNC early, before any information was put on Wikileaks and when -- you have still been -- never been given access to any of the technical or the physical machines that were -- that were hacked by the Russians.

COMEY: That’s correct although we got the forensics from the pros that they hired which – again, best practice is always to get access to the machines themselves, but this – my folks tell me was an appropriate substitute.

But CrowdStrike's Alperovitch went on the record almost one year earlier admitting, "we don't have hard evidence."

A few paragraphs after the excerpt above ends, you really need to read. You really need to read. Mr. Johnson puts it all together. Especially with regards to a freedom of information request to the N.S.A.

This is C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot" for today:

Tuesday, June 18, 2019. The propaganda gang is at work manufacturing a war on Iran, on the campaign for president we note Bernie Sanders and Kirsten Gillibrand, and more.

Starting in Iraq . . .

ll

Link to headline article

Report: Rockets fired at U.S. military base at Camp Taji Iraq The rocket fire comes amid tensions between the US and Iran and as Islamic State continues to threaten Iraq months after its defeat in Syria.

The Jerusalem Post

Jun 17, 2019

Tom O'Conner (NEWSWEEK) types:

An Iraqi military base where U.S. and allied coalition troops are stationed has been targeted by a rocket attack just as the Pentagon released new photos purporting to show Iran was behind recent attacks on oil tankers in the Gulf of Oman.
The Iraqi military's official Security Media Cell reported Monday that "a short time ago, three Katyusha rockets fell on Camp Taji," a military installation also known as Camp Cooke, located about 17 miles north of Baghdad. The apparent attack came just two days after unknown assailants fired rockets at Balad air base, another Iraqi installation where U.S. military personnel were present.
No casualties were reported in the previous attack, though the Security Media Cell said more details would be forthcoming about the latest incident, which also came amid a spike in tensions between the U.S. and Iran, which has begun to scale back its commitments to a 2015 nuclear deal that the White House pulled out of completely on a year ago.

Well if NEWSWEEK says it, it must be true, right? I mean the did the US government's bidding and destroyed Jean Seberg and then pinned it on a Los Angeles gossip columnist. Why would they ever lie, right? When would they ever tell the truth is more like it.

Here's one lie they might want to explain -- it's not an Iraqi base for the US only.

THE NEW ZEALAND HERALD reports:

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has confirmed reports of rocket attacks in the vicinity of Camp Taji in Iraq.

This is the camp where 100 New Zealand troops are stationed.

"I'm told that none have come over and into the perimeter of the camp and therefore there have been no New Zealand casualties."

And it's not just New Zealand.

‏Verified account @7NewsSydney

Three rockets have hit a military camp in Iraq where 300 Australian troops are stationed. @jenbechwati #auspol #7NEWS

1:04

590 views

Rockets hit military camp in Iraq

7NEWS | 6pm nightly. www.7NEWS.com.au

3 replies1 retweet2 likes

Show this thread

NEWSWEEK left that out. Imagine that, the rag that destroyed Jean Seberg, that wrote that she was carrying another man's child but living with her husband (for fear of lawsuit, you didn't print that), that falsely claimed to have interviewed her for the piece, a piece of s**t rag like that would lie? And someone inform THE JERUSALEM POST (a key plant for the US government when they want to work some propaganda on US audiences) that Camp Taji is not a "US military base."

At least STARS AND STRIPES gets it right. Here's their opening paragraph, "Rockets that landed inside the perimeter of Camp Taji in Iraq on Monday caused no casualties among coalition or partner forces, the U.S.-led Operation Inherent Resolve said Tuesday."

Rocket attacks on bases have taken place repeatedly throughout the ongoing Iraq War. From last Saturday night:

The Iraq War doesn't stop just because US cameras focus elsewhere. PA reports a small fire on Balad Air Base in Iraq -- where US 'trainers' are present -- resulted frrom a mortar attack. Qassim Abdul-Zhara (AP) notes there were no deaths and no one was injured and that the attack took place "shortly after midnight Friday."

XINHUA notes, "A total of 16 Islamic State (IS) militants were killed on Monday in an airstrike by the U.S.-led coalition aircraft in Iraq's northern province of Nineveh, the Iraqi military said." First, stating that Islamic State militants were killed does not mean they were. Most of these attacks result in the deaths of civilians. Second, if anyone's trying to attack US forces in Iraq currently, the most likely suspects would be ISIS. Third, ISIS and the government of Iran are opponents.

Back in May, there was an attack on the Green Zone. And the US media response was to yap-yap that this was Iran and to try to beat the drums for another war. When a group stepped forward claiming that they had staged the attack, the same media was not interested. One of the few to report on the group's claim was Alex McDonald (MIDDLE EAST EYE):

A previously unknown armed group has claimed responsibility for a Sunday rocket attack on Baghdad's Green Zone, claiming the attack was retaliation for US President Donald Trump pardoning a soldier over the 2009 killing of an Iraqi detainee.
In a statement released to a number of Iraqi news outlets, a group calling itself the Operations of Martyr Ali Mansour said it had fired the Katyusha rocket into the fortified area, which houses the US embassy.
They cited as a cause Trump's pardoning of Michael Behenna, a former United States first lieutenant who was convicted of murdering an Iraqi prisoner, Ali Mansour Mohammad al-Jabouri, in 2008.
The group denied that it had a connection to Iran or Iran-backed groups in Iraq, while acknowledging that such a connection had been suggested.
"Our appearance is because of Trump's decision, and we have no connection to any internal, external or supporting side," said the group, according to Iraqi newspaper Al-Mada.

The group claimed to have carried out several other operations in the past, including targeting US forces with Katyusha rockets at Camp Taji, north of Baghdad, on 30 April.

As NEWSWEEK and others do the promotional push for another war, few are buying it.

‏ @Mgoddard259

Replying to @SpeakerPelosi

The American people are sick of US wars that WE KNOW are being pushed by Bolton and Pompeo based on LIES. There were no WMD in Iraq. Venezuela is NO THREAT to the US. It is 100% clear to the American public that these wars have nothing to do with the US "defending" itself.

‏ @EmphaticFair

Replying to @laraseligman @ActingSecDef and

We watched that movie before

While US navy there nobody attacks those ships

Iran is not that stupid, this is fake attack

Make a reason to war with Iran

Same as Saddam's chemical weapons

Trump wants to control Oil countries "Venezuela, Iraq, now Iran" rest is scenario

Richard Gonzales (NPR) notes:

The Defense Department announced it is deploying 1,000 more U.S. troops to the Middle East "for defensive purposes" amid growing tensions with Iran.
Acting U.S. Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan said Monday in a statement that the action, meant to address air, naval, and ground-based threats, comes after "a request from the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) for additional forces."

The Trump administration has blamed Iran for a series of attacks on oil tankers in the Gulf of Oman.

THE IRISH TIMES adds, "Underscoring the seriousness of the escalating crisis, the White House on Monday accused Iran of engaging in 'nuclear blackmail' after Tehran said it would soon breach part of the nuclear deal the Obama administration – along with the UK, France, Germany, Russia and China – signed with the Islamic Republic. Mr Trump withdrew from the deal a year ago, but the Europeans had been trying to ensure that Iran remained in compliance with the nuclear pact."

Can someone explain that last part?

If I divorce you and we both move on to others, don't come at me with, "You're breaking your marriage vows!" In other words, the contract was no more once Donald withdrew from it. This should not be confusing. When one party withdraws from an agreement, that's the end of the agreement -- unless the party being left decides to sue.

Let's note this Tweet from Senator Bernie Sanders:

‏Verified account @SenSanders

The Gulf of Oman incident must not be used as a pretext for war with Iran. War would be an unmitigated disaster for the United States, Iran, the region, and the world. A unilateral U.S. attack on Iran would be illegal and unconstitutional.

662 replies2,202 retweets6,241 likes

An angry e-mail to the public account notes that Tweet and says THIRD should have included it in "Editorial: No to War on Iran." Should they have?

First, note my use of "they." I didn't help write that editorial. I was one of the reasons Jim included in his note to the readers that there was no piece on Julian Assange. I do not believe Julian should be persecuted. I also don't believe that after working hours and hours on the weekend, we should have to come back on a Monday or a Tuesday or a Wednesday night to finish the edition. I don't want to spend that kind of time. So if there's not a Julian article after we've worked forever, too bad.

Second, as I read the editorial, they are talking about "candidates" for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination. Yes, Bernie is a candidate. But that Tweets is not from his campaign Twitter feed, it's from his US Senator Twitter feed. They are clear that they are looking at the campaign Twitter feeds. If Bernie's posting on his Senator account, good. But if he's campaigning and he believes in what he's saying, he needs to carry it over to his campaign Twitter feed.

The angry e-mailer also feels that "You have done nothing to promote Bernie!"

I didn't realize it was my job to promote Bernie. Because it's not. He has been mentioned in snapshots. I will make an effort to include the female candidates when possible. But even they don't get as much attention here as I wish they did.

I haven't decided who I will support in the primaries. US House Rep Tulsi Gabbard's campaign comes closest to addressing the issues that matter to me. But I haven't endorsed her. I could easily and gladly vote for the following if they got the nomination: Tulsi, Bernie Sanders, Marianne Williamson, Kirsten Gillibrand, Beto O'Rourke and Mike Gravel. I could vote for a few others running without holding my nose. But I haven't decided who to support and don't know that I need to.

If, for example, Bernie's your candidate of choice, you probably don't want me supporting him. With the exception of John Kerry in 2004, no one I supported in the primary ever got the nomination. Bill Clinton beat Jerry, for example. Mondale wasn't my choice in the 1984 primary. Over and over, my choice never gets the nomination. I'll slide the e-mail over to Jim who -- I'm sure -- will respond to it. (And you can e-mail THIRD via the public account here, we have more people going through the e-mails. But, again, I had no part in that editorial.)

Here are some Tweets from Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, one of six women running for the nomination.

At the end of the day, the question is: Do we value women? And for me, there will always be only one answer. 

If you agree, join me:

878 replies195 retweets934 likes

Don't get me wrong, I love being on the campaign trail. But there's no place like home with Maple.

90 replies48 retweets832 likes

A four-month-old.

This baby, and this family, will suffer from this trauma—caused entirely by this administration—for the rest of their lives. We can't become numb to this.

596 replies398 retweets1,097 likes

We must honor the nine people murdered at Emanuel AME four years ago today with action, not just words. We need to reject white supremacy, wherever we see it, and end gun violence—starting with closing the Charleston loophole. #Emanuel9

philip lewisVerified account @Phil_Lewis_

Four years ago on this date, these 9 people were killed by a white supremacist at the Emanuel AME Church in Charleston, SC. #Emanuel9 

39 replies90 retweets412 likes

Our democracy is built on the principle of one person, one vote. Racial gerrymandering dilutes the voting power of people of color.

This is good news from the Supreme Court. Now let's focus on redistricting reform to ensure voting rights.

64 replies56 retweets252 likes

Thank you, Kristyn—your endorsement means the world to me. So proud to have you on our team in New Hampshire!

22 replies17 retweets86 likes

Anyone who questions whether women can determine this election wasn't paying attention in 2018, and they certainly aren't seeing how fired up women are right now. Thank you for three empowering, inspiring days, @the_wing!

99 replies77 retweets395 likes

When I was little, I'd help my grandmother volunteer for Democrats. She was so powerful—taking action to make a difference. I wanted to be JUST like her.

She showed me that women's voices matter. That's why I entered public service, and it's why I'm running for president.

186 replies142 retweets1,409 likes

The following sites updated: